Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax Section Wise
Citation -
Order by


Income Tax - Case Laws

Showing 21 to 40 of 102374 Records

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1518 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

    Addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 56 - gift in question received from HUF - eligibility of HUF as a donor - Held that - The assessee is fair enough in not disputing the fact that the former category in clause (i) of (e) defining a relative qua an individual recipient does not include an HUF as a donor. The legislature has incorporated clause (ii) therein to deal with an instance of an HUF donee only receiving gifts from its members. We refer to Board s circ....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1517 - ITAT KOLKATA

    Rectification of mistake - FTS has to be taxed at a concessional rate of 15 of the gross receipts as per the provision of Article 13(2) of the DTAA as against higher rate of tax provided at 20 of gross receipts u/s 115A of the Act - Held that - In the present case there is an agreement between India and U.K. for avoidance of double taxation and therefore the assessee is entitled to plead that taxability has to be as per the provision of the Act o....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1516 - ITAT MUMBAI

    Reopening of assessment - Non issuance of notice under section 143(2) - Held that - Non issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act by the Assessing Officer invalidates the order passed under section 143(3) r/w 147 of the Act. As far as the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative that assessee should have raised the objection against non issuance of notice under section 143(2) within a period of one month as per section 124(....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1515 - ITAT DELHI

    Revision u/s 263 - deduction u/s 80IA (4) (i) not allowable to the assessee as the assessee was only an operating company and not an enterprise engaged in the business of infrastructure development - Held that - It is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law - a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Ld. Principal Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order ....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1514 - ITAT MUMBAI

    Depreciation on expenditure incurred on construction of Mumbra bypass road on BOT basis - Held that - The assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the cost incurred on construction of the BOT facility, since, by incurring such investment the assessee has acquired a valuable commercial or business right in the nature described under section 32(1)(ii) r/w Explanation 32(1), Explanation 3(b) of the Act. - Also in the preceding assessment years ....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1513 - ITAT JAIPUR

    Liability of deduction of tax at source U/s 194H - liability to pay tax as the assessee in default U/s 201(1) & 201(1A) in respect of discount extended to the distributors for pre-paid SIM cards and recharge coupons - Held that - This issue of liability of the assessee to deduct tax at source in respect of discount allowed to the distributors on pre paid SIM cards and recharge vouchers has been considered by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Co....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1512 - ITAT JAIPUR

    Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - exemption u/s 54F as claimed in the return of income - defective notice - non-striking off of the irrelevant clause - Held that - The notice talks about both the charges and it doesn t convey to the assessee as to which charge he has to respond. The notice thus demonstrate non-application of mind on the part of the AO. Further, we refer to the assessment order where, after discussing the issue relating to computation of ca....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1511 - ITAT KOLKATA

    TDS u/s 194C - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - payment of carriage inward charges and transport charges without deduction of tax at source - Held that - A specific contention was raised on behalf of the assessee before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings itself that the transport charges in question were paid by the suppliers and the same were subsequently reimbursed by the assessee. The stand that there being no contract b....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1474 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Selection of case of scrutiny assessment - validity of notice - Attainment of requirement u/s 143(2) - deemed service of notice - High Court 2012 (12) TMI 1148 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT answered the question in the negative taking the view that what is required to be satisfied by the Revenue is service of notice and not mere issuance thereof - Held that - The non-availability of the respondent Assessee to receive the notice sent by registered post a....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1473 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Reopening of assessment - eligibility to deduction u/s 10B - eligibility of reasons to believe - change of opinion - Held that - The assessment in question was framed without scrutiny when the assessee s return was accepted under section 143(1). AO had objections to the assessee s claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Similar claims made by the assessee for the assessment years 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 were not accepted by the Assessing....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1472 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that - The Tribunal has taken a view rightly that a deemed dividend could only have been assessed in the hands of a person who is shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of the borrowing concern in which such shareholder is a member or partner having substantial interest. Admittedly, in the present case the assessee-company was not a shareholder of the lender company. But, in this case both the l....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1471 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - Held that - AO in the reasons recorded, proceeded on the erroneous footing that the assessee had not filed return at all. The first premise for issuing the notice was thus factually incorrect. It is now not disputed by the Revenue that the assessee did file return of income for the year under consideration which was duly acknowledged by the Department. The entire reasoning thus proceeded on the wrong....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1470 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

    Stay on demand - Held that - Though normally this Court will not interfere in writ jurisdiction against said interlocutory orders passed by the Appellate Authority, which is seized of the appeal before it, but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the appeal itself is coming up for final hearing after its pre-ponement of date on 09.04.2018 itself, and on which date it is expected that the learned....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1469 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Issue of taxability of the sale tax exemption benefit availed by assessee - Held that - At this stage of our dictation, Mr. Chhotaray interjected to mention that it should be Assessing Officer / Inspector and not Assessing Officer alone. This is contrary to what was stated to us during the hearing. In fact, we were categorically told by Mr. Chhotaray that he has met the Assessing Officer twice and he was informed by him that no order has been pas....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1468 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

    Claim for written back of excess provision for bad and doubtful debts - Held that - If an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability and the same is written back in the books of accounts, the said written back expenditure, loss or trading liability shall be eligible to levy of tax as income. The burden lies on the Revenue to prove that the provision for bad and doubtful....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1467 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Penalty u/s 271D - reasonable cause for violation of Section 269SS - Tribunal partly allowed the Appeal by restoring the issue of amounts received in cash from agriculturists to the Assessing Officer to verify whether the agriculturists were not having banking facilities so as to delete the penalty under Section 271 D - Held that - The law provides that the breach of Section 269 SS invites penalty under Section 271 D. The aforesaid breach has no ....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1466 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Reopening of assessment - reason recorded for reopening of the assessment was the claim for donation under Section 35(1) - Held that - Held that - It is undisputed that when filing of return of income on 12 February 2008, consequent to reopening notice, the Respondent had not made a claim deduction of ₹ 1.00 Crore for donation, inspite of donation made to M/s. Indian Medical Scientific Research Foundation, Agra. The ....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1465 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Adjustment of refund against next assessment year - Held that - According to the counsel for the petitioner thus, after the adjustment for the refund of the earlier year, the deposit towards disputed tax liability for the current year would exceed 20 . Counsel for the Revenue do not dispute this factual assertion of the petitioner. - In view of these developments, no further relief would be needed to enable the petitioner to enjoy the stay pendin....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1464 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Addition u/s 68 - genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the parties - reassessment proceedings - Held that - The material on record in the form of the orders of the lower appellate authorities disclosed that both the assessee and later the share applicants (upon receiving notice under Section 131 of the Act) had produced documentary proof. These included the assessments and income-tax returns filed by the share applicants as ....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1463 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Addition 41(1) - remission of liability - sum towards waiver of sales tax - Held that - The facts in this case are identical with that of the Sales Tax Deferral Scheme of the State of West Bengal in which the State had identically permitted the collection of sales tax but deferred the payment by 12 years. The assessee, like in the case of Sulzer India Limited (2014 (12) TMI 267 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), approached for a pre-deposit, which was permitt....... + More

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version